Surprising

Rating: Null/10 (23 July 2003)

I went into the theater knowing nothing more than "it's a zombie movie".
Having no expectations usually makes a film more enjoyable, it allows you to be pleasantly surprised. Perhaps this is no exception. Regardless, I found this film to be very well done. A scrappy, smart, small studio (read non Hollywood) release that does not overextend itself and achieves a very intense and lasting effect.
The lighting and set work was stunning. The pace and suspense was very effective. My favorite thing about the film however was the realism. I don't fault a film on the details of it's portrayal of zombies. That's not the point of the film here. While some action was implausible (i.e. changing a tire in the tunnel!), I found the conviction of detail, theme, and story very realistic. The many details of post-apocalyptic Britain were intriguing, creative, and chilling. These details also made the film more believable and compelling (`the end of the world is f'ing nigh', Jim's parents' death, his headwound, irradiated apples, etc.)
Most importantly, the film's plot winds in smart, unpredictable, and thoughtful ways. The story does not explore the horrors of zombies, a killer virus, or the apocolypse so much as it explores the unknown and the evils inherent in man - a very real, primal, and criminal horror that already exists and is not dependent on zombies or the end of the world, just a minor breakdown in society. It is a chilling Hobbesian exploration of the social contract.
The propensity toward animal/mechanistic one-on-one killing (or other sexual and violent crimes) demonstrated by both protaganists (Jim's transformation at the film's end, Selena's instant dispatching of Mark) and antagonists (the soldiers) in the film is chilling. Shifting the conflict from man against monster to man against man was a beautiful development. This twist is refreshingly unpredictable and smart. It would have been effaced or inadequately explored if this film came out of Hollywood. There would have been a lot more shooting and machismo. Jim would have been played without subtlety by some hot property like Collin Ferrell.
Instead, the protaganists NEVER picked up guns - except to use the bayonnet. The action of this film kept the frame of resolution tight and uncomfortably man-to-man. Certainly the duality of the protagonists was explored, but the killing remained personal and uncomfortable (yet animalistic) for them. It remained responsibile, conscious, self-defense - a necessity awakened by the circumstances. This contrasts the detached mechanical use of bullets and violence employed for personal gains in power or sex (i.e. the soldiers). In a clever inversion, the one soldier who considers using the bayonnet find himself in an argument with his partner, allowing Jim to escape. It is this reluctance to take moral and social responsibility that separates the antagonists from the protagonists, the animals from the humans, the soldiers from the non-militants, and (almost) the women from the men.
I was happy with the acting and found the characters moderately well developed.
Though the film loosely borrows some concepts, themes, and action from other post-apocaloyptic sources (Romero's original Night of the Living Dead, King's novel The Stand), I do not fault this as a weakness. Overall I found no particular weaknesses in the acting, direction, cinematography, etc. In that respect I disagree with many of the reviews here.